If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Love the extremes. That's exactly what I was saying. I guess this is what I can expect as kids begin to spend more time on the gun range than in English class. The only people mentioning "dropping guns as a whole," "dropping police as a whole," and other such nonsense are those opposed to any form of gun control whatsoever. I don't believe armed guards in schools will solve the problem at all. As I've said in other threads, I'm willing to try it (don't worry, we're not actually going to try anything. This is 'merica! Guns > Kids), but I don't think it will be effective, and this is just one of several reasons.

The fact is, even well trained police go into panic mode when **** gets real and even they make horrible decisions with guns in their hands. The LAPD and NYPD are only recent examples. More errant bullets flying around isn't all that great of an idea, IMHO. Not to mention the fact that armed guards are trained and paid even less than police, particularly those that would be paid by an extremely underfunded education system.

Your "logic" is befuddling. Do you live in a Utopia where every single thing goes right every single day?
Bad things happen, what you need to ask yourself is what is the best way to be prepared for it. Using Dorner as a "bad example" of what could happen with cops in schools is assinine. Its like saying Lanza shows all gamers on psychotropic meds are child killers, so lets not have anymore gamers or psych meds.
The problem is, and always will be, the criminal intent on mischief and mayhem. If armed guards at schools are so bad, why does the President and other well to do parents send their kids to a school with armed guards everyday, safe in the knowledge a Newtown incident is a lot less likely than at JFK Elementary in the less affluent end of town.

Tell me....if China wanted to kill one of its citizens in out country using a drone strike, and does so against our wishes and without our consent, how is that so different from what were doing in Pakistan?

IF we were harboring terrorists against international decree THEN it wouldn't be any different.

That's one hell of a leap in logic and geography for ya there Wally....you feeling OK today?

The KKK is actually a pretty good analogy for jihadism, which GoFins confirmed by saying that people who didn't oppose them were impotent cowards, just as he says Muslims who don't oppose Al-Queda are. My question was meant to examine what he really expected white Southerners in the 100 or so years after the Civil War to do. If he really thinks they should have uprooted themselves and moved to KKK heavy areas to fight the besmirching of Christianity the KKK was doing, then at least he's being consistent regarding Muslims today. If not, then he's not.

Tell me....if China wanted to kill one of its citizens in out country using a drone strike, and does so against our wishes and without our consent, how is that so different from what were doing in Pakistan?

The **** are you even talking about? You were the one who made it sound like I shouldn't be in favor of drone attacks on Pakistan because I wouldn't personally like to be droned. That's not a relevant counter argument, which is the whole point I was making.

The **** are you even talking about? You were the one who made it sound like I shouldn't be in favor of drone attacks on Pakistan because I wouldn't personally like to be droned. That's not a relevant counter argument, which is the whole point I was making.

OK.....is it something you ate or were you taken over by an alien? Asking you to put yourself into the shoes of someone in a scenario you describe is a totally valid argument. Its just not as much fun when youre a part of the collateral dammage is it?

OK.....is it something you ate or were you taken over by an alien? Asking you to put yourself into the shoes of someone in a scenario you describe is a totally valid argument. Its just not as much fun when youre a part of the collateral dammage is it?

Depends on the argument and depends on the way it's conceived. To say I shouldn't be in favor of bombing another country because I don't want my own country to be bombed is not a valid counter argument.

Depends on the argument and depends on the way it's conceived. To say I shouldn't be in favor of bombing another country because I don't want my own country to be bombed is not a valid counter argument.

You should check your blood sugar...im pretty sure you need a snickers bar